Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA11865 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:49:21 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Simple neural models Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:05:03 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOEKOCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: <200007280117.VAA03312@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Joe E. Dees
> Sent: Friday, 28 July 2000 11:22
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Simple neural models
>
>
> From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Subject: RE: Simple neural models
> Date sent: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:00:39 +1000
> Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
> [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > > Of Joe E. Dees
> > > Sent: Friday, 28 July 2000 6:34
> > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Subject: RE: Simple neural models
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, your map does not adhere to the territory; I have provided
> > > numerous irrefutable counterexamples to your claim that the two
> > > are contiguous.
> > >
> >
> > you have provided no such thing; I have easily demonstrated that your
> > so-called counter examples are refutable.
> >
> Okay, refute the irretrieveably triadic phenomenological structure of
> perception (focus/field/fringe), the irreduceably triadic structure of
> semiotic signification (sign/signifire/signified), the
> irrefuteably triadic
> hermeneutic structure of communication (code/carrier/message),
> and the three distinct indices of received perceptual content
> (frequency, amplitude and waveform).
I have already done that in past posts but you, being fanatical, failed to
'see' that. ANY trichotomy is revealable as a lack in precision, they in
fact are trying to reflect FOUR states that emerge from TWO, or TWO from
ONE. Whenever you try to use a trichotomy it implies a lack in resolution at
the relationships level, a failure to distinguish STATIC elements from
DYNAMIC elements.
The process of derivation is ONE (object: whole) TWO (objects: whole/parts)
THREE (whole/parts/relationships BUT the problems will emerge if you do not
differentiate STATIC/DYNAMIC from the general term relationships.)
Note that in the process of derivation we go ONE-TWO-THREE but in teaching
we actually entangle relationships with objects,
whole-statics-parts-dynamics. Add negation and you get eight fundamental
states used for categorisation. Something I am sure you have no idea about
since you are so 'stuck' in the particulars; so specialised. Behind your
specialisation are generalisations that are species-specific and
understanding these SAMENESS levels gives you better insights to all of the
DIFFERENCES.
I think your 'problem' is in single context thinking; thus you see
code-carrier-message in the form of a equilateral triangle with each point
being of equal value. Not right. There is a sequence, a hierarchic format
contained in this manifest in the process of derivation. Your neurology does
not introduce triadic formats etc at the level of the first distinction. It
is like a protolanguage pattern which is distinctly hierarchic where the
Sentence is made up of Noun Phrase and Verb Phrase, thus the sentence is
'higher' than the NP and VP.
This reflects our use of (a) a universe of discourse and (b) A/~A within
that universe. The trichotomies 'emerge' from ~A since that is a MANY not a
ONE but in doing so you have to be wary of the hierarchy present or else you
will get false data. The problem comes from learning, from feedback, in that
once you establish a triadic format as primary so you will keep seeing this;
you dont go through 1-2-3 every time, once you get to 2 or 3 within a
particular context you will 'start' at whichever level in future
experiences. If you get the 1-2-3 'wrong' you will still try to impose it;
as you seem to be doing.
That is ok in that as in all complexity/chaos systems you will not notice
the emergence of 'errors' until you are down the line abit and as such will
not go back to initial conditions but try and defend your position from the
point of difference; from where the errors emerge.
Eventually you will get the hang of it but until then we must tolerate your
errors! :-)
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 28 2000 - 02:50:16 BST